I Why on Earth do we not see older stars close to us?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Martyn Arthur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Creation Stellar
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on why older stars are not observed close to Earth, despite the ability to see ancient stars in deep space. Observers closer to these stars would see them at a later evolutionary stage, while Earth-based observers view them as they were billions of years ago. The speed of light and the continuous process of star formation play crucial roles in these observations. As a result, younger stars are also visible in our galaxy, which is still actively forming new stars. The conversation highlights the complexities of astronomical observation and the nature of star evolution.
Martyn Arthur
Messages
114
Reaction score
20
TL;DR Summary
Why then on Earth do we not see older stars close to us?
Phares as pragmatically as I can, thus leaving aside observational issues such as light speed, Universe expansion, moving apart galaxies and the Universe having no edge. Focusing on the fact that an observer on Earth looking deep into space can effectivly see the oldest stars formed during the creation of the universe. They are at tha point in time factually at a particular age.


At the same absolute point in time when both observers are insantaneously stationery, another observer in the same line of sight of those first stars, looking in the same direction positioned say midway between Earth and aforesaid stars, sees those same stars, of the same facual age, albeit she is a lot closer to them than Earth.

Why then on Earth do we not see older stars close to us?



Thanks
Martyn
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Martyn Arthur said:
At the same absolute point in time when both observers are insantaneously stationery, another observer in the same line of sight of those first stars, looking in the same direction positioned say midway between Earth and aforesaid stars, sees those same stars, of the same facual age,
No they do not. They will see those stars as they appeared later in their evolution and, beyond them, will see other stars at the beginning of the first stars igniting.

Martyn Arthur said:
albeit she is a lot closer to them than Earth.
Precisely because they are closer, the observer will see them as they were at a later time.
Martyn Arthur said:
leaving aside observational issues such as light speed, Universe expansion, moving apart galaxies and the Universe having no edge
If you want to talk about what is actually being observed, you cannot just disregard stuff that affects those observations. In particular the speed of light in this case.
 
Martyn Arthur said:
Focusing on the fact that an observer on Earth looking deep into space can effectivly see the oldest stars formed during the creation of the universe.
We would see such a star as being, say, 1 billion years into its lifetime, whereas an observer that's closer to the star would see it as being older. A protostar that we observe from very far away might have already passed all the way through its main sequence and become a white dwarf for an observer close by.

Also, keep in mind that star formation is a continuous process. We see young stars as well as old stars here in our galaxy because our galaxy still supports star formation and the younger stars have been born more recently.
 
Thank you for a brilliant answer to a dumb question for which I offer my apologies.
Thanks
Martyn
 
  • Like
Likes davenn and Drakkith
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top